New Hampshire Representative Max Abramson (R-Seabrook) has introduced a bill to lower the number of signatures for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. Current law requires 3,000 signatures for statewide office. The bill would convert petitions for all office to one-tenth of 1% of the population. For statewide candidates, the requirement during this decade would be 1,317 signatures. The bill will be given a bill number in the next few days.
Abramson was previously affiliated with the Libertarian Party. See this story about his 2014 campaign for NH governor.
Thanks for the update and the explanation.
Every bill, except those being “retained” come out of committee and the full House votes on the committee recommendation. The committee voted to kill the bill, however that must be approved by the full House. There is enough support to get it removed from the Consent Calendar, and I believe to also have a roll call vote.
The chances of overturning the ITL are slim, though it will be interesting to see how many reps vote in support of ballot access reform!
That’s odd, I thought BAN said it was defeated in committee?
The Executive Session was Feb 17, the Election Law Committee voted 15-1 to send the bill to the full house on the consent calendar with the recommendation of Inexpedient To Legislate (i.e. the full house will vote to kill the bill).
Rep. James Gray (committee Vice Chair) says the bills goes too far in reducing the number of petitions. Rep. Hogan was the dissenting vote.
This bill should appear on the House Calendar March 3 (no session this week)
Thanks DWP – please keep us in the loop.
It has more co-sponsors than the legislation last year that would have given all candidates the same ballot access requirement (i.e. independent and minor party candidates would pay same fee as major party and have no petition). Since it hasn’t yet received a bill number, the committee hearing hasn’t been scheduled.
I’ll be speaking with the Election Law Committee on Wednesday on other bills, I’ll ask around about support of this bill.
Darryl, or anyone else in NH, any sense of how much support this may have in the legislature?
My point was not that he is not currently a Libertarian Party member, but that’s exactly what ex-Libertarian means is “no longer a Libertarian”
it is that he has chosen to affiliate with the Republican Party. He is listed as “R-Seabrook”, not “L-Seabrook”. That is telling, no matter what party or parties he is a member of.
point taken, and agreed
“I don?t have a problem with the wording, it?s certainly more accurate than calling him a ?Libertartian state representative.? would be. I think we were just speculating/fleshing out the details of whether or not he?s still an LPer who was elected as a Republican, or an LPer who affirmatively left the LP in order to join the GOP.”
It’s all good.
“Great news. It?s always good to hear about ballot access restrictions being lifted.”
Fight’s not over yet, but it’s a start. Personally I’m more excited about ballot access bills in Oklahoma. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/oklahoma-ballot-access-bills-introduced-in-house/
It’s encouraging that one of the bills was offered up by the speaker of the house.
Great news. It’s always good to hear about ballot access restrictions being lifted. Thanks for posting.
“Meanwhile, he is to be commended and supported for this fine move.”
Absolutely!
I don’t have a problem with the wording, it’s certainly more accurate than calling him a “Libertartian state representative.” would be. I think we were just speculating/fleshing out the details of whether or not he’s still an LPer who was elected as a Republican, or an LPer who affirmatively left the LP in order to join the GOP.
“Are you sure that the TX rule applies to national, and not just state, conventions?”
No. See followup comment.
“Ron Paul did attend a mid-2000s (’04?) LNC if I recall correctly, though as a speaker and not a delegate.”
Being a speaker wouldn’t be an issue anyway, only being a delegate.
“Who is or isn’t a member of a party can get pretty complicated.”
True.
“Meanwhile, he is to be commended and supported for this fine move.”
I agree.
Are you sure that the TX rule applies to national, and not just state, conventions? Ron Paul did attend a mid-2000s (’04?) LNC if I recall correctly, though as a speaker and not a delegate. And of course then there’s the matter of if a state’s presumption of affiliation, should trump self-description. This has also come up in the past wrt the LP bylaw prohibiting the nomination of someboy who is “a member of another party.”- which could mean a wide variety of things, from voter registration, to dues-paying membership, to the state-presumed affiations you note, to self-description, to having recieved the nomination of another party, etc., etc. Who is or isn’t a member of a party can get pretty complicated.
Meanwhile, he is to be commended and supported for this fine move.
My point was not that he is not currently a Libertarian Party member, it is that he has chosen to affiliate with the Republican Party. He is listed as “R-Seabrook”, not “L-Seabrook”. That is telling, no matter what party or parties he is a member of. Ron Paul, while a life member of the Libertarian Party, chose to affiliate as a Republican. This was not meant to be derogatory, I was just calling attention to the LP connection. I chose Ex-Libertarian instead of a more technically correct terminology because wordy titles suck.
I think running for office is also an act of affiliation under Texas law, and may require either nomination at a convention or participation in a partisan primary. However, I’m not 100% sure on that, and you may have a point that it would not be a problem under TX law to participate in a national convention of another party, as opposed to a precinct, county, district or state convention. I’d research that carefully if I was a crossover politician in Texas though, as I would not want to be denied a nomination for office on that basis. I’m not sure if New Hampshire has any similar laws, but I seem to recall that was one of the states where Republican party officers were in trouble with their party for signing Libertarian ballot access petitions.
Martin Passoli, you and Andy are not necessarily saying contradictory things. RP could have still ran for office as a R and attended the L convention, he just couldn’t vote in the R primary if he attended the L convention, and the SOS knew about it. (not that he ever did attend an LNC convention while serving in Congress, just that he theoretically could).
Generally you would be correct, but in the case of Texas. ..Texas does not have a party space on their voter registration, what they do instead is consider someone affiliated with a party if they either attend that party’s convention as a delegate (at any level, starting with precinct conventions), vote in their primary, or sign a ballot access petition for the party. All of those are considered acts of partisan affiliation, and Texas law does not allow someone to sign one party’s petition or attend their convention and attend another party’s convention or vote in their primary in the same election year.
Ron Paul, for example, never renounced his life membership in the LP, even after being re-elected to Congress as a Republican. He could have been a TX delegate to the LNC while serving as a Republican US Representative.
I think Darryl is correct. Being elected as a Republican (or any other party) and being a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party are not per se mutually exclusive. It’s usually a reasonable assumption, but in this particular case I don’t think “ex-Libertarian” or “formerly affiliated” are accurate.
that’s correct; my point is I don’t think “Ex-Libertarian” is a correct term. “Former Libertarian Gubernatorial nominee” would be a more correct term.
Possible, but he was elected as a Republican, not a Libertarian.
I don’t believe that Max has resigned his Libertarian Party membership